I think 22 is best treated as a mini LR exercise.

The line is kind of like a conclusion, and it boils down to "if we increase # of species → the number of endangered species will increase too". The assumed argument is that the newly split out species will come from species with potentially endangered populations/groups contained within. Once these groups are split out, there will be an increase in the # of endangered species.

Another way to put it is that a NA for the argument is at least some splits will happen among species with potentially endangered groups. (splitting super common sparrow species into super common small beak & super common large beak sparrows would not make for increased # of endangered species for example)

E provides support by validating that- it says that if the original species doesn't have a potentially endangered group, splitters are less likely to fight for splitting them out. The contrapositive of that would be splitters are ambivalent or more likely to fight for splitting out potentially endangered groups, which would logically lead to a higher number of potentially endangered species.

A very tough question to get right for sure, since E is very subtlety strengthening the claim in the last sentence. The key to getting this right is to think about how the claim could be proved, or a potential NA for the conclusion to be true.

I was also signed up but I didn't receive an email with the link either!

Same :(

Q12 - I chose A as I misread the passage on my first run through. Instead of realizing that there was a difference in the group of people who studied the limits of oral composition and people who were driven to study archeological/historical background, I thought the passage was saying they were the same group of people :/

Once I listened to JY's explanation of the passage, I got the right answer.

I think you may be inferring too much from the word "undermine" in the stimulus. Here, undermine does not mean to reduce the values until they place "little value" on prestige associated with an economic role" - it merely means reduce the effectiveness of the values or make the values weaker.

Additionally, the premise does not address technologically advanced societies (or societies that are not tech advanced) so it is too much of a leap to assume that the introduction of a new tech = technologically advanced society. New tech only means that the society is a little more technologically advanced than it was prior to the introduction.

I think the key here is to focus on how the argument is made.

In B, a 2nd alternative is suggested in addition to the initial condition, and in the stimulus it's the same because of the words "no other" in "if there is no other evidence than" strep bacteria.

In D, a new condition is not brought up as necessary- the words of the AC actually point to how often the high blood pressure reading is achieved. In other words, D is suggesting the frequency of the initial necessary condition is the reason why we can't draw the conclusion instead of bringing up a whole alternative necessary condition.

Beyond recognizing the assumption of individual buyers immediately, it would be useful to write out the equation of the two relationships mentioned here:

Premise: (Average price paid for a new car / average individual income) is positive (increased for past 25 years)

Conclusion: (Average % individual income spent on new cars today / Average % individual income spent on new cars 25 yrs ago) is positive (increased)

These equations would help eliminate trap choice A, as increased HH wage earners does not immediately effect either equation. It tells you nothing about average individual income today, average price paid for a new car, and average % individual income spent on new cars today.

In fact, increased number of wage earners does not necessarily equate to a higher HH income. Both people could significantly reduce work hours and even end up with an equal or lower HH income.

Fell for the trap answer A, but in my second time looking at the question I realized that there is a leap in logic between the premise and conclusion that D targets. Premise: people who have pets are correlated with being unhappy. Conclusion: If person A wants to be the happiest she can be, she should not get a pet.

D is the alternative possibility - actually, pets are correlated with increased happiness, so those who are unhappy with a pet would be even more unhappy without one. Thus, on average it may appear that pets cause unhappiness even though unhappy people may decide to get a pet at a higher rate in order to become happier